Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.182 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.182; envelope-from=akaramaoun@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ig0-f182.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: akaramaoun@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20150616181724.GA4055@muck>
References: <CAL8tG==LG=xC_DzOaghbGGKab4=UVpGLQV7781pU4wg+WnFdMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjqQ66f1Rmhi9HOBYP5BDjBHvTNPpUN-y3o-KX8dXBMhg@mail.gmail.com>
	<557D2571.601@gmail.com>
	<CAL8tG=kEv9AfQM+1Rv+tqBujFEjCp+BsjQ-1s7eJC-usogFFqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjrSed4r+8-d2RGBVhbzaXxX+o=qqw2u-2jpF2RUqmEmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0OJg2hC4Ab4Yxy3ekH4WXD9hqHore8+sbF9r1r2SwT_zg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150616181724.GA4055@muck>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:43:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CAL8tG==iJwqPBVTDap=8TC9eCUz4ExfxtGz6p75FXbQJXaByMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew <onelineproof@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011604121a71fd0518a6f3a5
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scaling Bitcoin with Subchains
Precedence: list

--089e011604121a71fd0518a6f3a5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> Merge-mined sidechains are not a scaling solution any more than SPV is a
> scaling solution because they don't solve the scaling problem for
> miners.
>
> Some kind of treechain like sidechain / subchains where what part of the
> tree miners can mine is constrained to preserve fairness could be both a
> scaling solution, and decentralized, but no-one has come up with a solid
> design yet that's ready for production. (my treechains don't qualify for
> transactions yet; maybe for other proof-of-publication uses)
>
>
Well doesn't my proposal solve the miner decentralization problem. Only the
direct parent and children chains are merge mined. To be more clear, let
the top chain to have level 1. Each chain that is a child of a chain of
level n has level n+1. For any chain C, a block is accepted if the hash of
its header has an appropriate number of trailing zeros (as usual). It can
also be accepted with special transactions as I will explain. Let C be a
chain of level n. Let C0,C1,....,C9 be its children (each of level n+1).
For any i in {0,1,...,9}, any solution to the mining problem of C can be
inserted as a special transaction inside Ci and this enables the block to
be accepted in Ci (so C and C0,C1,...,C9 are merge mined. But, for any i in
{0,1,...,9} and any j in {0,1,...,9}, any solution to the mining problem of
C cannot be inserted as a special transaction inside of child Cij of Ci. So
that means all of the chains are not merge mined, only localised parts,
right?

By the way, we can eventually get rid of the block size 1 MB limit by
requiring more than just the header to be hashed, but that can be done in
the future as soft fork with sidechains, and is a side topic.


-- 
PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28  49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647

--089e011604121a71fd0518a6f3a5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Merge-mined sidechains a=
re not a scaling solution any more than SPV is a<br>
scaling solution because they don&#39;t solve the scaling problem for<br>
miners.<br>
<br>
Some kind of treechain like sidechain / subchains where what part of the<br=
>
tree miners can mine is constrained to preserve fairness could be both a<br=
>
scaling solution, and decentralized, but no-one has come up with a solid<br=
>
design yet that&#39;s ready for production. (my treechains don&#39;t qualif=
y for<br>
transactions yet; maybe for other proof-of-publication uses)<span class=3D"=
HOEnZb"></span><br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well doesn&#39;t my proposal solve the=
 miner decentralization problem. Only the direct parent and children chains=
 are merge mined. To be more clear, let the top chain to have level 1. Each=
 chain that is a child of a chain of level n has level n+1. For any chain C=
, a block is accepted if the hash of its header has an appropriate number o=
f trailing zeros (as usual). It can also be accepted with special transacti=
ons as I will explain. Let C be a chain of level n. Let C0,C1,....,C9 be it=
s children (each of level n+1). For any i in {0,1,...,9}, any solution to t=
he mining problem of C can be inserted as a special transaction inside Ci a=
nd this enables the block to be accepted in Ci (so C and C0,C1,...,C9 are m=
erge mined. But, for any i in {0,1,...,9} and any j in {0,1,...,9}, any sol=
ution to the mining problem of C cannot be inserted as a special transactio=
n inside of child Cij of Ci. So that means all of the chains are not merge =
mined, only localised parts, right?<br></div></div><br></div><div class=3D"=
gmail_extra">By the way, we can eventually get rid of the block size 1 MB l=
imit by requiring more than just the header to be hashed, but that can be d=
one in the future as soft fork with sidechains, and is a side topic.<br></d=
iv><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gm=
ail_signature">PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28 =C2=A049E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647=
</div>
</div></div>

--089e011604121a71fd0518a6f3a5--